openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Make x Dmake x Build (Was: Re: [Error] Compile AOO on Debian amd64)
Date Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:56:51 GMT
On 4/19/13 12:33 AM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 18 April 2013 22:38, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:17 AM, janI <jani@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 18 April 2013 14:08, Claudio Filho <filhocf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013/4/18 Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <orwittmann@googlemail.com>:
>>>>>> But regarding the removed Slot FN_PROPERTY_WRAP_DLG perform a clean
>>>>> build of
>>>>>> module sw:
>>>>>> - cd sw
>>>>>> - make clean
>>>>>> - build
>>>>>
>>>>> Oliver, sorry by my newbie ask, but... we don't use more dmake?
>>>>>
>>>>> If i understood correctly, "build" is a perl script that calls all
>>>>> modules, building in order of dependence, entering in each one,
>>>>> calling Dmake to compile and delivering all files where need.
>>>>>
>>>> correct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw some "makefile" files and many more "makefile.mk", where i
>> think
>>>>> that one is for Make and other is to Dmake. I see it in wiki too, for
>>>>> build parts.
>>>>>
>>>> again correct.
>>>>
>>>> Problem is that some of the modules have been moved away from dmake to
>>>> "gbuild", so right now it is a mix (and not a very smart one).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jan --
>>>
>>> This last comment "not a very smart one" is interesting. Do you care to
>>> elaborate?
>>>
>> I have to watch more carefully what I write, someone is actually reading it
>> :-)
>>
> 
> yes, we do that sometimes! :)
> 
> 
>>
>> I am deep in the building system at the moment with my l10n work, and what
>> we have now in trunk is approx 2/3 orignal dmake (that btw also seem to
>> have at least 2 generations) and 1/3 gbuild, this combination does a good
>> job of confusing anyone who tries to understand the system. Just to make
>> things worse, the gbuild part is split in as many files as possible.
>>
>> So I should have written "dont try to understand it, just accept it",
>> actually someone else in here said something similar to me a couple of
>> month ago.
>>
> 

Exactly that is the problem, the work on gbuild is not yet finished and
we have a mix of gnu make and dmake. The gbuild is the outcome of an
analysis how to improve the build system. I believe it is not bad and
our friends from LO have more or less finished the work but I also
believe that it is too complex and can be done much simpler.

It's nearly impossible to debug and not easy to understand. It tried to
hide the complexity from single makefiles in the modules and introduced
soe kind of new scripting language based on gnu make. I am not sure if
that was the best approach.


> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I saw all this mixture too in my build experience, and well...couldn't
>>> figure out why. It seems historically dmake was used to speed things
>> along,
>>> but, well...I'm not sure how/why it's being used now exactly.
>>>
>> Actually the wiki/gbuild have a pretty good description. The people who
>> started gbuild did a real good job of analyzing the dmake build and an even
>> better job of documenting their findings.
>>
>> I am right now (slowly) in the progress of writing a document, with demands
>> to a solid, easy to understand build system, based on my experience from a
>> system about 4-5 times bigger than AOO.
>>
> 
> Great! I look forward to it! Although I have *used* make systems a lot
> throughout my career, I've never ever constructed one, so much of this is a
> mystery to me.

Me too and we can can benefit from something that we understand better
and that is potentially not so generic but where makefiles are readable.

> 
> 
>>>
>>> And, yes, I saw the gbuild branch was basically inactive and tried to
>> tract
>>> down some info on that, but couldn't find much discussion about it.
>>>
>>> We do indeed need to devote discussion time to our build process after
>>> 4.0.   I would hope we could at least make things simpler for folks
>> wanting
>>> to partial builds of areas.
>>>
>>
>> In my world, we can make it VERY simple...but even though gbuild is pretty
>> new, it uses the same philosofy as dmake, so it does not really change
>> things. I have a couple of ideas, admitted a bit radical, but they would
>> allow us to use standard make. My intention is to take the discussion, when
>> I have something to present, instead of starting the discussion with a
>> piece of blank paper.

I am looking forward to hear, read or see more

>>
>> Another thing we need to discuss is packaging, would it not be ideal if
>> people could just make writer, when working on that. I would like to see a
>> download page, where the user select which parts of AOO he/she wants to
>> download.
>>
>> I hope you like to appetizer :-)
>>
> 
> So far, what you say makes very good sense to me.  I'm happy you've started
> in this direction.

of course it make sense and is not really a new idea. But when you look
closer you will see that the difference in the end is not really huge.

But a simplified packaging process would be highly appreciated. I
believe there is a lot of room for improvements, especially when we
remove all the special cases that we no longer need.
This would probably help us to provide a good working patch mechanism.

The idea of dynamic packaging is an interesting one especially when I
think about localized version. Most of the stuff is the same and only
the localized string are different. It would be nice to have a process
in place where we could package the final downloadable dynamic. But it
becomes more complex when we take signing into account.

In the end our users want an easy to install end user product, that
means one download and a one click installation, maybe with minor options.

Or we need a minimal base installer that downloads the rest on demand.
Fine for many locations but not so good for regions where the internet
connections are still not goo enough or not existent at all.

Many ideas where we can start thinking ...

Juergen

> 
> 
>> rgds
>> Jan I.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In long term, we will migrate to Make or continue with this hibrid(?)
>>>>> model?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, at the moment we have a branch called "gbuild" with very little
>>>> activity. You can find a lot of description on wiki about gbuild.
>>>>
>>>> There are also ongoing work, to use standard make and a much simpler
>>>> structure (no perl build), but this is not something you will see until
>>>> after the 4.0 (and problaly 4.1) release. Once a complete is ready it
>>> will
>>>> be published and hopefully discussed on this list.
>>>>
>>>> rgds
>>>> jan I.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Claudio
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> MzK
>>>
>>> "There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain."
>>>                         -- Captain Roy Montgomery, "Castle"
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message